Yeah I have to say it would have been nice to have someone besides Dan write the review to better gauge it's quality. Dan saying he loves it doesn't exactly tell me a whole lot. Not that Dan has to apologize for being a fan, but something from Jeff or Alex would have been more interesting to someone who doesn't have a fountain of love for previous 3d Mario games like me. Granted reviews are not a big draw for the site anymore and we'll hear from the rest soon, but yeah. It's not so much the score (which seems in line with most for a 5 point scale) but it is pretty fawning like the BotW review, which while exciting has numerous and pretty obvious weaknesses.
This pretty much sums up my point. While I played and liked BOTW a lot, it didn't blow my mind. I liked it enough to look forward to the big upcoming DLC, but the fact many reviews overlooked faults with the game and claimed it was perfect and the best game in the last decade and beyond was ridiculous. Even Dan with all his praise, ultimately picked PUBG as the game that had the most impact for him this year. And again, nothing against Dan personally, but these comments are being made for a reason. And people criticizing the comment section on GB, clearly haven't seen the comments on websites like Reddit gaming sections or even the comments left on Digital Foundry videos, which is console world war III every video. Like I said, I have no doubt the game is very good, but....
Some of my favorite games of all time have massive flaws that aren't being overlooked, just overshadowed. I don't understand where the assumption came from that perfect scores mean a total lack of flaws. Many people thought BotW was the best game in years, not that it was a perfect game.
Also one review is never built for everyone, catering the Mario review more towards your interest is not any more or less valid. You're not wrong for wanting a different perspective but then neither was GB for using Dan's.
The idea that so many positive reviews for Nintendo games are from the bandwagon effect is incredibly childish and a total bummer to so regularly see here. How Dan feels about Mario Odyssey being less valid because he liked other Mario games is a hell of way to come at this.
There was a thread a while back implying Breath of the Wild was well received because of said bandwagon and that we'd all realize this after the new-game buzz wore off. Since then I've played over a hundred hours of that game and still think it's a GotY contender. Telling me my love of something is irrational simply because you disagree is the shits.
What American marketing told you Sonic was about is not actually what Sonic is about.
Sonic /= Speed
Sonic = Physics and momentum control
Sonic = Platformer and Marble Madness fusion.
"What's the point of a game about running fast when you get punished for running fast?" How would your answer not immediately be "maybe it's not about running fast?" instead of "game is garbage!". Like it or hate it I just ask that people first try to understand what Sonic games actually were.
Generally speaking I just wish people cared more about what something is instead of what it's supposed to be.
I think people are more willing to lower their standards for Mario 64 due to it's age and less so for Sunshine, not really appreciating how soon after 64 this game came out.
At least that's the only way I can see someone being ok with how 64 felt but not Sunshine. This is, what, less than 6 years older than Mario 64? Camera controls in 3d games circa 2002 were...let's say "different" from modern video games.
Crash Bandicoot 1 was a time and place sorta thing. 1996 was a hell of a year for the maturation of 3d gaming and Crash was one of the earlier even remotely effective uses of the tech. While it's often compared to Mario 64 that's mostly just the intense marketing for Crash as competition to Mario 64 for your 3d game console of choice.
'97 and '98 brought massive improvements as devs actually learned what the hell they were doing but I do think Naughty Dog deserves a fair bit of praise for being such quick learners. Part of this is in recognizing just how massively far ahead of everyone else Nintendo was with Super Mario 64. In the case of Crash Bandicoot it loses out big time by comparison but compare it to almost everything else that year and it seems pretty remarkable.
All that said I do think Crash 2 and 3 hold up fairly well as decent 3d platforms, leaving Crash 1 behind as a nostalgic oddity of such an odd period in gaming history.
I feel like people became so sensitive to swearing as a means to be edgy that they've become prone to false alarms and are too quick to assume intent. It's gone from "swearing doesn't make something cool" to "swearing makes something uncool"
Also it seems shortsighted to think a trailer without gameplay provides literally nothing but confirmation of it's existence. For a game so clearly focused on world building and characters it seems bonkers to ignore what it tells us of the game's tone and world.
I don't think his mouse sensitivity was an issue for me as a viewer but I do think it's pretty common for people to set it too high for FPS games. Most things are better with higher sensitivity but first person shooters really should be low if you want a decent hit rate.
I think peeps aren't used to moving their arm much on PC and have a gut reaction away from that but for shooters it's way worth it.
I'm not asking them to be good at this game but I would prefer more effort. I enjoy them goofing off and having fun while still engaging with the interesting mechanics that make up PUBG.
I wish there was a greater understanding from these forums of the massive range between pro level play and barely trying. Too often asking GB for more gets the usual "oh boy, another grognard getting angry at them for not being good at video games, you guys play how you wanna play". All I'm requesting is a greater effort to learn how this game functions strategically.
Kinda the same criticism I have about Fighting Game coverage on this site.
Waypoint's Austin Walker and Patrick Klepek know how to do this well, where they can still be informed about the game enough to know strategies and tricks to give an entertaining skillful play of PUBG while also being hilarious with their daddy-son angle.
Loading Video...
Austin and Patrick are killin' it with those father/son bonding runs.
I wish they'd ask themselves why they thought to do something in games. More often than not I suspect the answer is "because I did this other thing for a bit and I thought I should do something else". Mentally engaging with any sort of competitive video game requires asking yourself "why" every time you decide to do something
If they don't ask "why" every match will look exactly like this one. That's not inherently wrong but consider this my vote against.
Lv4Monk's comments